...her case for the designated hitter. Baseball's probably too complex for Reid, though.

Isn't the answer here obvious? Farrell v. Burke!

(And GD: way to demonstrate that you never read the Ricci opinion yourself. Good job.)

I can't believe someone was so reflexive as to ask Senator Reid to read an opinion that doesn't exist ("her opinion in the Firefighter case"). No, that's not right. I do believe that.

What's with the assumption that Reid ever learned to read?

Should Harry Reid be reading her opinions?

Seriously: is this the best use of a senator's time, and if all senators read every supreme court nominee's opinions, would it improve the quality of their decision-making? Or would it have the opposite effect?

Jonathan Adler,

I find these two posts of yours about Reid, especially their sarcastic titles, to be immature. You can do better than that, I would hope. Do you have anything intelligent to say or is the extent of your intellect making up lame titles?

I think a couple of things are obvious.

While Supreme Court justices are very important, their confirmation isn't the most important business before the Senate. The Senate should not come to an absolute standstill while all 100 senators devote themselves to doing nothing more than reading every last word that Sotomayor has written in her life.

You wish that members of the legislature would read every last word in the legislation they voted on. That does not strike me as sensible. But, according to you I guess it is okay to avoid reading legislation that you vote against. That makes a lot of sense! It is okay to be "uninformed" voting against legislation, but not for it? That makes no sense. You are not advocating that Senators and Representatives make uninformed votes, are you?

It is not necessary for members of the legislator to read every line of every piece of legislation to be "informed" about what that legislation does.

See, there is this really cool thing that some of us at least of have been very cognizant of since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. That thing is called division of labor. I know, crazy idea, isn't it!

Yeah, the Senate the House make use of this idea. I know, it sounds crazy, but Senators and Representatives make use of these things called "committees." So, how it works is that Senators and Representatives specialize and focus more on the implementation details of legislation and other votes.

Now, you may think that the division of labor is a crazy idea. I mean, it doesn't make sense to rely on others for things that are important, does it? I mean, I am sure that you built the computer you use to make lame titles for even more lame blog posts yourself, right? I am sure you also grow your own food, and cook everything from scratch, right?

What? That isn't practical for your own life? Well, it isn't practical for the United States Senate either. If Reid were to read one or two opinions of Sotomayor, the benefit would be close to nil. If he were to read a whole lot, the benefit may not be nil, but he would have to neglect work on his own on the committees he is actually assigned to, which do not include the Judiciary Committee.

So, here is what Reid should do. If Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin and their entire staff all agree that they are going to confirm Sotomayor and Reid knows he is ideologically aligned with them, he can rely on them to perform the detailed examination of her record. Only if there is a split amongst them or Reid felt his philosophy diverged from theirs would it start to make sense for Reid to divert time from other extremely important business to reading Sotomayor decisions.

Oh, and your views are wholly impractical. That your impractical views are framed in a sarcastic and immature way is icing on the cake.

They don't read the legislation they vote on, why on Earth should they read a judge's opinion before they vote to confirm?

I don't see why they bother with the hearings... (Face time on TV, obviously.) Worlds Greatest Deliberative Body, what a crock.

The Didden opinion, no question.

Should probably post that one, too, so people can see that there really was no such thing. The entire unpublished unsigned ruling of the three-judge panel, including two GWBush appointees, follows. The Takings Clause "ruling" is in bold (and my apologies for OCR errors):

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a May 24, 2004 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, J.) dismissing their complaint alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Port Chester and others. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history in this case. We review the District Court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Taylor v. Vermont Dep't of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 776 (2d Cir.2002).

In April 1998, Defendant-Appellee G &S Port Chester, LLC, ("G &S"), entered into a development agreement with Defendant-Appellee Village of Port Chester that named G &S as the designated developer of a marina redevelopment project. On July 14, 1999, after a public hearing, the Defendant-Appellee Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution in which it made a finding of public purpose for condemnation of the properties located in the redevelopment district. In March 2003, Appellants discussed with representatives of a pharmacy chain the possibility of constructing a pharmacy on their property. A portion of Appellants' property adjoined the redevelopment district and another portion lay within the redevelopment district. According to Appellants, at a November 2003 negotiation session with Defendants-Appellees G &S and Wasser, Wasser demanded $800,000 from them in order to avert a condemnation proceeding of their property within the redevelopment district, and offered to allow them to proceed if Defendants-Appellees were given a partnership interest in the project. Appellants refused both demands and, two days later, they received a petition seeking to condemn their property. On appeal, Appellants advance constitutional claims based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments asserting, inter alia, that they have a right "not to have their property taken by the State through the power of eminent domain for a private use, regardless of whether just compensation is given."

The statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims in New York is three years. Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 225 (2d Cir.2004). "While state law supplies the statute of limitations for claims under § 1983, federal law determines when a federal claim accrues." Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2001). Under federal law "a cause of action generally accrues 'when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.'" M.D. v. Southington Ed. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 221 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 309 (2d Cir.1993)). Appellants had reason to know of the basis of their injury when the Board announced its public purpose finding on July 14, 1999. Appellants, however, brought suit in January 2004, more than three years after the date their claims accrued, and thus their claims are time-barred. We reject Appellants' contention that their injury actually accrued in November 2003 when G &S and Wasser "first utilized their de facto eminent domain power against [them] in an effort to exact a cash payment or partnership interest" in the pharmacy project.

Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not timebarred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted. See id. at 2668 ("Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project."); see also Rosenthal &Rosenthal Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 771 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1985). Finally, we agree with the district court that Appellees' voluntary attempts to resolve Appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Appellants' claims are time-barred. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them”

In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up.”

Well, someone wrote those 3 paragraphs in the Per Curiam opinion in Ricci. Maybe a Senator should ask her if she was the one.

I understand where this is coming from, but in the Farrell case the phrase "reasonable parolee who had been convicted of sexual crimes involving minors" is used. Let that be your laugh of the day.

Were you aware that she did not write an opinion in the firefighter case? The panel issued a per curiam, meaning that it was a ruling from the panel as a whole, not an opinion from any of the judges writing for him- or herself.

Huh. Are "sarcasm" tags required now? In Web 1.0 the compiler would infer sarcasm based on the context. :-).

I can't believe someone was so reflexive as to ask Senator Reid to read an opinion that doesn't exist ("her opinion in the Firefighter case"). No, that's not right. I do believe that.

”Reflexibly” I’d suggest the gun rights case, that being my main interest. However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci. I might want Reid to ask something like, “Is it possible for you to find that a white male plaintiff is the victim of discrimination?”

Plus, it’s a very short read.

LarryA:

However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci.

Critics of Judge Sotomayor really should try to get their facts straight. Yes, there WAS an opinion. No, it was not HER opinion. It was a PER CURIAM opinion. If this distinction is too subtle for you, then I suggest that you step back, take a deep breath, and withhold comment for a while, as you are confusing the issue, not adding to anybody's understanding of it.

However, in this instance and given the emphasis on empathy, I think it’s interesting that there was no opinion in Ricci.

Critics of Judge Sotomayor really should try to get their facts straight. Yes, there WAS an opinion. No, it was not HER opinion. It was a PER CURIAM opinion. If this distinction is too subtle for you, then I suggest that you step back, take a deep breath, and withhold comment for a while, as you are confusing the issue, not adding to anybody's understanding of it.

My understanding is that there was, in fact, no opinion for a while, just a summary order, untill there was a request for a re-hearing en banc. Is that not correct?

David Welker said:

Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you on choosing to bring rude skepticism about the intelligence of other people to the discussion. I want you to know that I found that approach to be very persuasive! You must be so smart! Yes you are! You are the smartest! Go you! *pats you on the head* Fetch!

It's funny that you ridicule Professor Adler for immaturity and then fall into a black hole of immaturity yourself. Please grow up.

It's funny that you ridicule Professor Adler for immaturity and then fall into a black hole of immaturity yourself. Please grow up.

Your right. I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.

Grammar fail:

Your right (sic). I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.

"You ARE right."

Maybe you should take your Civics 101 lesson over again. Committees make recommendations, and when there is disagreement in the committee they issue minority and majority reports. When a judicial nomination is considered, they may recommend approval or disapproval. If they recommend approval, then it goes to the full Senate, with senators free to accept or reject the recommendation. If they recommend rejection, the nomination dies in committee and is not submitted to the full Senate for vote. What is it about this process that tells you the recommendation "should be automatically passed"? And what makes you think that, when a senator reads the committee reports and bases his or her vote on the committee recommendation, the senators is not "well informed"? That is the process that has been put in place for the very purpose of informing the senators about what they are voting on.

In other words, pluribus, the Senators will actually have to read multiple reports to do their job. And guess what they are going to find in those reports, numerous passages from her decisions. I guess then poor Senator Reid will have to at least read parts of her decisions after all.

If each senator tried to do the work of all the senate committees, they would be overwhelmed and unable to do anything at all.

Some of us look upon that as feature, not a bug!

Your right. I shouldn't make fun of someone who is so insecure that they need to attack the intelligence of someone else before proceeding with their point.

Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my snarky remark regarding Reid; but perhaps you shouldn't attack others' intelligence while writing, "Your right."

Reid publicly accused Justice Thomas of authoring "poorly written" opinions, and when pressed for an example cited a Supreme Court decision in which Thomas had not written separately. So I don't think Reid's ability to make much out of judicial opinions is entitled to much deference, myself.

I would be more willing to accept the position that Senators do not have the time to read the opinions of judges before voting to confirm or deny if it weren't for the fact that Senator Reid had the time to read several opinions of Janice Brown when she was up for a Circuit Court judgeship. Of course Senator Reid is an ethical man who takes his responsibilities as US Senator seriously and would never allow base partisanship to cloud his judgement, however being too busy cannot be the explanation for why he was able to find the time to do analysis of opinions for Brown but not for Sotomayor.

I'm now wondering how many of Samuel Alito's or John Roberts' opinions were read by the Republican leadership. Or, for that matter, how many of the opinions of any nominees are typically read.

But I think the criticism of Reid overlooks an even more important issue: surely a President who nominates should have read all the opinions. No doubt Bush did just that with Alito and Roberts. And no doubt a President should read, word for word, every single bill which comes across his desk.

12:30:

Your recent comment assumes that you are smart enough to make heads or tails of any opinion. . . . I am skeptical of [this] assumption[]. (emphasis in original)

4:12:

I should point out, because you appear to be confused, that I wasn't attacking your intelligence.

Perhaps you might defend this apparent contradiction by saying you were simply being sarcastic in your original post. And yet, you seem to take such umbrage in the practice, when employed by others...

I'm now wondering how many of Samuel Alito's or John Roberts' opinions were read by the Republican leadership.

Well, we don't know. Perhaps because they weren't dumb enough to brag about the fact that they hadn't read any of them.

Well, we don't know. Perhaps because they weren't dumb enough to brag about the fact that they hadn't read any of them.

While Harry Reid is well beyond dumb enough to brag about it, that hardly makes the substantive point better. On either side.

MarkField,

Why would you buy into David Nieporent's claim that Senator Reid was "bragging" about this?

I personally appreciate Senator Reid's honesty. It is better that people understand how legislatures really work rather than have illusions. Ultimately, such illusions can be fatal to legislative proposals. People are just *shocked* when legislation or regulations turn out to be thousands of pages, because they don't understand the process by which it is produced. It is better that they not be shocked -- it actually makes it easier to get things done -- because it is harder for interest groups to exploit that ignorance into thinking that something is especially unusual. I remember a lot of opposition to the Clinton health care proposals highlighted how many pages the proposals took. But, that is just the nature of these sorts of proposals.

Your impractical theories about how legislatures should work flies in the face of the practical ways that legislatures really do work.

Back in Adam Smith's day, of course, there were artisans who insisted that all the steps of creating a product should be in the hands of one skilled artisan. But of course, while it is certainly possible to not have a division of labor, it is definitely impractical if you must accomplish more than making a few items.

In an ideal world, where time was an infinite resource, then of course every Senator should spend an infinite amount of time considering every last implication of every single comma and period in every single piece of legislation they vote on. In this world, they should consider the implications for not only humans, animals, but also for inanimate objects. In the real world, that is impractical. It is not merely a luxury to delegate work to other Senators and to staff members, it is a practical necessity.

Might I point out that if legislatures did spend all their time reading every opinion, or every bill that came before them, we all might live in a better world. After all, seems to me that they just screw things up when they get their hands on them (of course, with noted exceptions). While we do need some laws passed, an informed legislature that does read everything means less gets done which probably means we all win.

It's the nature of scorpions to sting, too, but that doesn't mean we should act as enablers in letting them sting us. Better to just step on the little buggers.

Yes, and I agree that to say that such and such is the nature of a thing does not constitute a substantive defense. That wasn't my point. =)

Might I point out that if legislatures did spend all their time reading every opinion, or every bill that came before them, we all might live in a better world. After all, seems to me that they just screw things up when they get their hands on them (of course, with noted exceptions). While we do need some laws passed, an informed legislature that does read everything means less gets done which probably means we all win.

That point of view totally makes sense from a libertarian perspective. Which is precisely why proposals from libertarians that a division of labor not be used by legislatures should be treated with special skepticism. From a libertarian perspective, it is a win-win:

Libertarian: Oh, the government will be "solving" less problems because of the procedural requirement I am advocating. That is so sad! Please ignore the fact that this just so happens to align with my substantive preferences regarding what Congress should do about most problems anyway!

Members of Congress stand for reelection ever 2 or 6 years, devote thousands of human hours to obtaining/retaining their seats via campaigning by canvassing, debating, pleading (and paying millions and millions of dollars for even that privilege). Yet the Senate, which has an Advise and Consent role here need not spend time reviewing the qualifications/appropriateness of a lifetime tenured position for the third and supposedly coequal branch of government?

I find the "not gonna bother cuz we're too busy" argument specious. It should not matter whether you construe the Advise and Consent role narrowly, or broadly, but there is a duty there and to blatantly abrogate that duty as Majority Leader is shameful and, frankly, embarrassing.

Reid has beclowned himself when it comes to evaluating justices and their opinions. Here's an account of his embarrassing performance on "Meet the Press", and dug himself deeper in a few weeks later on "Inside Politics"

Readers of this column will recall that last month we criticized Reid for calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and saying Thomas's opinions are "poorly written," in contrast with those of the brilliant Antonin Scalia. We noted that Reid hadn't given an example of a poorly written Thomas opinion, and wondered if Reid's statement didn't amount to simple bigotry: stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black.

An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):

Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?

Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.

Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.

To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

Bad English,

I am still waiting for the point to be articulated. As if.

Indeed. The strawman that he needs to read every one of her opinions is just that: a strawman. But his staff could do some culling, selecting some representative opinions for him to read.

I think is perfectly reasonable for him to read some of her opinions. But, of course, the issue is how "representative" these really would be. I am sure they would be representative in some respect, and not in others.

Would this exercise in opinion reading likely change Reid's vote if Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Leahy, Feinstein, Spector, and all the rest were going to vote for her knowing far more? I think that is unlikely. But, I would have to concede it would not be a totally useless exercise. Would it be more useful than just reading the reports from the committee? I am not so sure about that, especially if he also follows and considers the arguments of the minority side of the aisle?

I am not so sure about that. While I think it is perfectly reasonable to read some sample of opinions, I think it is equally reasonable not to.

DMN,

Allow me to congratulate you on not conflating Phil Spector and Arlen Specter as, oh, 80% of commenters on all the blogs I read seem to have done this last week. I mean, all white men don't really look alike. And one of these really is a lot creepier than the other. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I mean the one who came by the "o" legitimately, not through typo-land.

Michelle Dulak Thomson,

Pshaw. I spelled it with an e the first time!

No, in other words, if Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Specter et al. and their staffs all come to a positive view of this nomination without dissent amongst their ranks, I will defer to their judgment because they have similar judicial philosophies. Time is a scarce resources, and the United States Senate has other extremely important business to attend to other than the very important business of confirming Sotomayor.

That said, I have messed up the name enough in the past.

David Welker bursting onto the scene:

"I find these two posts of yours ... to be immature. You can do better than that, I would hope. Do you have anything intelligent to say or is the extent of your intellect making up lame titles?"

Dude, you shouldn't have passed up that Dale Carnegie course. Making pronouncements on someone's intellect is not a reliable way to win friends and influence people.

Just so you know, my reaction was to say, "Well, there's a web site I'm never visiting." After reading a couple more of your comments, I came 'round 180 degrees, thinking, "I've got to see if this guy is for real." And so I became like the 230th person to see you sitting there imperious astride your pachyderm, resplendent in your Banana Republic safari duds. (Could you have found a graphic more befitting your tone? I don't think so.)

I am not a lawyer. I used to work as a semiconductor process engineer.

One of my early lessons in how the semiconductor industry works came from a maintenance tech, who brought me the documentation for maintenance of the multimillion dollar production toolset for which I was newly responsible. He asked me how he should clean inside the tool during maintenance, with one solvent or another.

I did not know offhand, being so new, and he then told me that it was not documented in the procedures, but that for the last 15 years he had used acetone followed by isopropyl alcohol followed by distilled water, because he had been taught to do so by his predecessor.

Then he asked me to document that in the procedures.

After a bit of research, I found that using just distilled water produced a significant yield improvement versus the old method.

Then he told me that the one with the wrench ran the tool.

When Senators don't read at least some of their legislation nor at least sample the work product of judicial nominees, they are delegating their jobs to their unelected staff and clerks, and whatever influences those individuals are under.

If I wanted a 25 year old staffer deciding on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees, Reid would be a great Senator for me.

David Welker: I find your post that criticized the OP then immediately led off with a strawman:

"The Senate should not come to an absolute standstill while all 100 senators devote themselves to doing nothing more than reading every last word that Sotomayor has written in her life."

To be immature. Please refrain from putting words in people's mouths if you are going to be commenting on their maturity.